staff report: regular calendardocuments.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2015/7/w26d-7-2015.pdfdated 3/5/15;...

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Central Coast Area Office 89 South California St., Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93001 (805) 585-1800

W26d Filed: 05/15/2015 180th Day: 11/11/2015 Staff: M. Troup-V Staff Report: 06/25/2015 Hearing Date: 07/08/2015

STAFF REPORT: REGULAR CALENDAR

Application No.: 4-14-1796 Applicant: County of Santa Barbara, Public Works Department Agent: Morgan Jones, Santa Barbara County Public Works

Department Location: 5986 Sandspit Road, Goleta (APN 071-200-017) Project Description: Replacement of the existing 34 ft. wide, 137 ft. long,

structurally deficient Goleta Beach Park Bridge with a new 53.5 ft. wide and 168 ft. long bridge. The project includes: (1) construction of north and south bank end diaphragm abutments founded on four piles; (2) construction of one supporting pier founded on four piles in the north bank of the slough; (3) a 2.5-5 ft. tall and 30 ft. long retaining wall at the north abutment; (4) the removal of the existing bridge including 24 piles; (5) installation of a new culvert to the adjacent parcel located between Sandspit Road and SR 217 to restore tidal influence and improve coastal habitat in a portion of Goleta Slough; and (6) implementation of wetland/riparian habitat restoration program.

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with eleven (11) special conditions regarding: (1) plans conforming to engineer’s recommendations, (2) construction timing, (3) biological surveys and construction monitoring, (4) tidewater goby and aquatic species management plan, (5) public access, (6) interim erosion control plans and construction responsibilities, (7) herbicide use, (8) conformance with the requirements of the resource agencies, (9) assumption of risk, waiver of liability and indemnity, (10) removal of excavated material, and (11) final habitat enhancement and revegetation monitoring program.

4-14-1796 (Santa Barbara County)

2

The Santa Barbara County Public Works Department is proposing to replace the structurally deficient Goleta Park Bridge which spans the Goleta Slough in Santa Barbara County and provides the only vehicular access to the popular Goleta Beach County Park. Bridge inspection reports in 2008 identified cracks in several piles of the existing bridge, necessitating temporary fixes until the bridge could be replaced. The existing bridge would be removed and replaced with a similar bridge approximately 60 feet upstream from the existing bridge. The project involves the removal of 24 concrete piles that are approximately 15 inches in diameter that support the existing bridge and which are all located within the open water area of the slough channel. The new bridge will be 31 feet longer than the existing bridge and will only have a single support consisting of four piles, each 3 to 4 feet in diameter that will be located entirely on the northern slough bank (outside the open water area of the slough channel under typical tidal conditions). The new bridge width would be 53.5 ft., which is 19.5 ft. wider (than the original bridge. The additional width would allow improved non-vehicular access including a wider pedestrian walkway and a 12 ft. wide Class 1 bicycle path, both of which would be segregated from the traffic lanes. The project also includes restoring all disturbed areas on site and restoration of an adjacent wetland area located on an adjacent parcel back to tidal influence to expand and create additional salt marsh habitat. The project site is located in Santa Barbara County, east of the Santa Barbara Airport and at the Goleta Beach Park entrance. The bridge is located at and adjacent to the Sandspit road, which crosses over the Goleta Slough. Sandspit road is a two-lane road that provides access to the Goleta Beach Park from State Route (SR) 217. The Goleta Park Bridge provides the only access to Goleta Beach County Park, which provides valuable year-round low-cost recreation for the community and visitors and is extensively used by vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Constructed in 1963, the existing bridge is 34 ft. wide, 137 feet long, and is supported by 5 spans and 18 piles. Currently there are two 12 ft. wide lanes with two 2 ft. wide shoulders and two 3 ft. wide sidewalks on the bridge. The replacement bridge will include two 12-ft. wide traffic lanes, two 4 ft. wide shoulders, a 12 ft. wide Class 1 bike lane, a 5 ft. wide pedestrian walkway, and two 1.75 ft wide traffic barriers. The County’s engineers performed an inspection of the bridge in 2008 and identified significant deterioration of the supporting piles and concrete components of the bridge structure and determined that the bridge would be unable to safely support the necessary load capacity. Under authorization of an emergency permit, two additional steel support piles and an I-beam cross member were installed in 2008 to provide temporary support until a permanent solution could be implemented. As proposed, the existing bridge over Goleta Slough will be replaced with a new bridge that will have a total deck length of 168 feet. The new bridge will be 31 feet longer than the existing bridge and only have one supporting pier with four supporting columns outside of the wetted channel of the slough. The bridge will be supported at each end (the north and south bank) by diaphragm abutments. To minimize construction time and interruption to access, the existing bridge will remain in service during the construction of the replacement bridge and will be removed upon completion of the replacement bridge. In this case, the proposed replacement of the existing deteriorated and structurally deficient bridge is necessary to ensure that safe public access is maintained to Goleta Beach County Park. In addition, the project would provide for significant improvements to public access and recreational


3

amenities on site. The new bridge will be approximately 19 ft. wider than the existing bridge and will be located approximately 60 ft. upstream from the existing bridge to be demolished. The increase in width is necessary, in part; to allow for the replacement of the two existing 3 ft. wide sidewalks on the bridge with a new 12 ft. wide, class 1 bicycle path with a 5 ft. wide public pedestrian path which will connect to the existing bicycle/pedestrian paths on each side of the bridge. In addition, the project includes the demolition of the existing bridge and removal of 18 piles within the open water portion of the Goleta Slough estuary and implementation of wetland/riparian habitat restoration program. The new bridge has been designed in a manner that will avoid the need for the installation of any piles within the open water portion of the estuary. Further, the project has been designed to avoid new adverse impacts to the wetland and sensitive habitat areas to the extent feasible. However, in order to mitigate impacts to water quality, wetlands, and sensitive habitat areas resulting from the project, the County has incorporated best management practices and implementation of sensitive habitat and wetland restoration plan as part of the proposed project. In order to ensure that the County’s proposed mitigation measures are adequately implemented, several special conditions have been required (including Special Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 11). Although the Commission has previously certified a Local Coastal Program for Santa Barbara County, the majority of the proposed project is within an area where the Commission has retained jurisdiction over the issuance of costal development permits. Pursuant to Section 30601.3(a), the applicant, appropriate local government, and the Executive Director may agree to consolidate a permit action for a project that spans local and state jurisdictions, thus allowing the Commission to process a single application covering the entire project. In this case, the County of Santa Barbara, in a letter to Commission staff dated March 4, 2015, requested that the Commission assume jurisdiction over all activities associated with the proposed project. The applicant both consented to, and facilitated this consolidated jurisdictional process, and the Commission’s Executive Director agreed. Pursuant to Section 30601.3(b) standard for review for this project is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the County of Santa Barbara’s certified Local Coastal Program used as guidance.


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION ........................................................................... 5

II. STANDARD CONDITIONS: ............................................................................... 5

III. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: .................................................................................... 6 1. Plans Conforming to Geotechnical Engineer’s Recomendations. ................................. 6 2. Construction Timing. ..................................................................................................... 6 3. Biological Surveys and Construction Monitoring. ........................................................ 6 4. Tidewater Goby and Aquatic Species Management Plan .............................................. 8 5. Public Access Program. ................................................................................................. 9 6. Interim Erosion Control Plans and Construction Responsibilities. ............................... 9 7. Herbicide Use............................................................................................................... 11 8. Conformance with the Requirements of the Resource Agencies. ................................ 12 9. Assumption of Risk, Waiver of Liability and Indemnity. ........................................... 12 10. Removal of Excavated and Demolition Material. ........................................................ 12 11. Final Habitat Enhancement and Revegetation Monitoring Program ........................ 123

IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS: ............................................................... 15

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 15 B. PROJECT AREA AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 18 C. ALTERATION OF COASTAL WATERS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ........................ 20 D. HAZARDS AND GEOLOGIC STABILITY ............................................................................... 29 E. WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 30 F. PUBLIC ACCESS................................................................................................................. 32 G. VISUAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 33 H. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) ................................................................................... 35 I. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) .................................................... 35

APPENDICES Appendix A - Substantive File Documents EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 – Parcel Map Exhibit 3 – Aerial Photo of Vicinity Exhibit 4 – Project Area Exhibit 5 – Photograph of Existing Bridge with Emergency Piles Exhibit 6 – Visual Comparisons of Existing vs. Proposed Bridge Exhibit 7 – Dewatering Plan showing new piles Exhibit 8 – Dewatering Plan Exhibit 9 – Habitat Impacts Exhibit 10 – Pedestrian Railing


5

Exhibit 11 – As-Built Bridge Plans Exhibit 12 – Site Plan, Proposed Bridge Exhibit 13 – Grading Plan, Proposed Bridge Exhibit 14 – Planting and Restoration Plan ADDITIONAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification No. 1600-2014-0214-R5 dated: 4/6/15; Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Certification No. 34214WQ16 for Goleta Beach County Park Bridge Replacement Project, dated 3/5/15; Army Corps of Engineers, Permit No. SPL-2014-00753-TS dated 4/8/15; California State Lands PRC Lease 1431.9 Renewal Application dated March 27, 2015. I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION Motion:

I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit Application No. 4-14-1796 pursuant to the staff recommendation.

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. Resolution:

The Commission hereby approves a coastal development permit for the proposed development and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned will be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Approval of the permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment.

II. STANDARD CONDITIONS: This permit is granted subject to the following standard conditions: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not

commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.

2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the

date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a


6

diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date.

3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent of interpretation of any condition will be resolved by

the Executive Director or the Commission. 4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with

the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it

is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.

III. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: This permit is granted subject to the following special conditions: 1. Plans Conforming to Engineer’s Recommendations. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant agrees to comply with the recommendations contained in all of the plans and reports prepared by a registered engineer that are referenced as Substantive File Documents. These recommendations, including recommendations concerning hydrology, bridge installation, best management practices (BMPs), and drainage shall be incorporated into all final design and construction plans, which must be reviewed and approved by a registered engineer prior to commencement of development. The final plans approved by the engineer shall be in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the Commission relative to construction, grading, and drainage. Any substantial changes in the proposed development approved by the Commission that may be required by the consultant shall require amendment(s) to the permit(s) or new Coastal Development Permit(s). 2. Construction Timing. Water diversion activities for the bridge removal including pile removal and installation and maintenance of the culverts and temporary fill in the open water portion of the slough channel, shall not occur from November 1 through May 29 to avoid potential adverse impacts to steelhead and goby. This period may be extended for a limited period of time by the Executive Director for good cause. 3. Biological Surveys and Construction Monitoring. For any construction activities, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified biologist or environmental resource specialist (hereinafter, “environmental resource specialist”) to conduct sensitive species surveys (including aquatic species, birds, and terrestrial species) and monitor project operations associated with all construction activities. At least 30 calendar days prior to commencement of any construction activities, the applicant shall submit the name and qualifications


7

of the environmental resource specialist, for the review and approval of the Executive Director. The applicant shall have the environmental resource specialist ensure that all project construction and operations are carried out consistent with the following:

A. The environmental resource specialist shall conduct surveys 30 calendar days prior to the approved construction activities to detect any active sensitive species, reproductive behavior, and active nests within 500 feet of the project site. Follow-up surveys must be conducted one week prior to the initiation of construction and nest surveys must continue on a monthly basis throughout the nesting season or until the project is completed, whichever comes first.

B. In the event that any sensitive species are present in or adjacent to the construction area but

do not exhibit reproductive behavior and are not within the estimated breeding/reproductive cycle of the subject species, the qualified biologist shall either: (1) initiate a salvage and relocation program prior to any construction activities to move sensitive species by hand to safe locations elsewhere along the project reach or (2) as appropriate, implement a resource avoidance program with sufficient buffer areas to ensure adverse impacts to such resources are avoided. The applicant shall also immediately notify the Executive Director of the presence of such species and which of the above actions are being taken. If the presence of any such sensitive species requires review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Game, then no development activities shall be allowed or continue until any such review and authorizations to proceed are received, subject to the approval of the Executive Director.

C. If an active nest of a federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species, bird species

of special concern, or any species of raptor or heron is found, the applicant shall notify the appropriate State and Federal agencies within 24 hours, and shall develop an appropriate action specific to each incident. The applicant shall notify the California Coastal Commission in writing by facsimile or e-mail within 24 hours and consult with the Commission regarding determinations of State and Federal agencies.

D. If an active nest of any federally or state listed threatened or endangered species, species of

special concern, or any species of raptor, song bird, or heron is found within 300 feet of construction activities (500 feet for raptors), the applicant shall retain the services of an environmental resource specialist with experience conducting bird and noise surveys, to monitor bird behavior and construction noise levels. The environmental resources specialist shall be present at all relevant construction meetings and during all significant construction activities (those with potential noise impacts) to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed by construction related noise. The environmental resource specialist shall monitor birds and noise every day at the beginning of the project and during all periods of significant construction activities. Construction activities may occur only if construction noise levels are at or below a peak of 65 dB at the nest(s) site. If construction noise exceeds a peak level of 65 dB at the nest(s) site, sound mitigation measures such as sound shields, blankets around smaller equipment, mixing concrete batches off-site, use of mufflers, and minimizing the use of back-up alarms shall be employed. If these sound mitigation measures do not reduce noise levels, construction within 300 ft. (500 ft. for raptors) of the nesting trees/areas


8

shall cease and shall not recommence until either new sound mitigation can be employed or nesting is complete.

E. The environmental resource specialist shall be present during all construction, grading, excavation, vegetation removal activities within all wetland areas of the site including installation and removal of the coffer dam and other dewatering measures . The environmental resource specialist shall require the applicant to cease work should any breach in permit compliance occur, or if any unforeseen sensitive habitat issues arise. If significant impacts or damage occur to sensitive habitats or to wildlife species, the applicants shall be required to submit a revised or supplemental program to adequately mitigate such impacts. The revised, or supplemental, program shall be processed as an amendment to this coastal development permit or a new coastal development permit.

4. Tidewater Goby, and Other Aquatic Species Management Plan Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the County shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a final plan for the protection of tidewater goby, and other aquatic species. The plan shall include the following elements:

A. Pre-construction monitoring surveys for tidewater goby, steelhead, and other aquatic species shall be implemented at the upstream, downstream, and mid-slough bridge areas, one year prior to construction. These surveys shall include one pre-spawn survey and one post-spawn survey. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a biologist approved to handle tidewater gobies under a Section 10a1a recovery permit to determine the general abundance of tidewater gobies. B. At least four (4) weeks prior to commencement of any onset work, the County shall submit the name and qualifications of a tidewater goby biologist or specialist, for the review and approval of the Executive Director. The County shall retain the services of the qualified biologist(s) or environmental resource specialist(s) to develop and implement the Tidewater Goby Protection Plan and to monitor project operations. C. The authorized biologist retained by the County shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel prior to the onset of work. The training shall include a description of the tidewater goby, steelhead, and their habitat; the specific measures that are being implemented to protect the tidewater goby during construction; and the project limits. D. The authorized biologist shall complete initial surveys for tidewater gobies and steelhead within the project area one week prior to the onset of work. E. The authorized biologist and a crew working under his/her direction shall clear all fish, including tidewater gobies and steelhead, from the area to be dewatered prior to construction. F. The authorized biologist shall be present when dewatering activities begin and subsequently inspect the water diversion and dewatered areas and construction site regularly to detect whether any tidewater gobies, steelhead or other fish are passing through the water diversion system and investigate whether tidewater goby protection measures are being implemented.


9

G. The qualified biologist shall be present when the temporary water diversion system is removed and the construction area refilled with water to relocate any fish present in the construction area before completion of removal operations and to ensure successful reintroduction of aquatic habitat in the construction area. H. Following construction, the authorized biologist shall complete post-construction surveys for tidewater gobies in the Goleta Slough. I. The qualified biologist shall prepare a post-project monitoring report documenting the efforts to protect the goby and steelhead, the results, and recommendation for future projects involving similar procedures. In the event that monitoring shows a significant decrease in the goby population that cannot be readily explained by natural factors or is clearly linked to the Project, the authorized biologist, in consultation with the USFWS and other experts, shall recommend a course of action to address the problem.

5. Public Access Program. A. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a Public Access Program and Plan that describes the methods (including signs, fencing, posting of security guards, etc.) by which safe public access to or around construction areas and staging areas shall be maintained during all project operations. The plan shall also include signs directing the public to alternative parking areas for the duration of construction and staging. Where public paths or bikeways will be closed during active operations, a person(s) shall be on-site to detour traffic or adequate fencing and signage shall be used. The applicant shall maintain public access pursuant to the approved Public Access Program. Any proposed changes to the approved program shall be reported to the Executive Director. No change to the program shall occur without a Commission-approved amendment to the permit unless the Executive Director determines that no such amendment is required.

B. Where use of public parking spaces is unavoidable, the minimum number of public parking spaces that are required for the staging of equipment, machinery and employee parking shall be used. At each site, the number of public parking spaces utilized shall be the minimum necessary to implement the project.

C. The applicant shall post each construction site with a notice indicating the expected dates of construction and/or public access or parking lot closures.

6. Interim Erosion Control Plans and Construction Responsibilities.

A. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director an Interim Erosion Control and Construction Best Management Practices Plan, prepared by a qualified, licensed professional. The qualified, licensed professional shall certify in writing that the Interim Erosion Control and Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) plan are in conformance with the following requirements:

1. Erosion Control Plan


10

(a) The plan shall delineate the areas to be disturbed by grading or construction activities and shall include any temporary staging areas and stockpile areas. The natural areas on the site shall be clearly delineated on the plan and on-site with fencing or survey flags.

(b) Include a narrative report describing all temporary run-off and erosion control measures to be used during construction.

(c) The plan shall identify and delineate on a site or grading plan the locations of all temporary erosion control measures

(d) The plan shall specify that grading shall take place only during the dry season (April 1 – October 31). This period may be extended for a limited period of time if the situation warrants such a limited extension, if approved by the Executive Director. The applicant shall install or construct temporary drains and swales, sand bag barriers, silt fencing, and shall stabilize any stockpiled fill with geofabric covers or other appropriate cover, install geotextiles or mats on all cut or fill slopes, and close and stabilize open trenches as soon as possible.

(e) The erosion control measures shall be required on the project site prior to or concurrent with the initial grading operations and maintained throughout the development process to minimize erosion and sediment from runoff waters during construction. All sediment should be retained on-site, unless removed to an appropriate, approved dumping location either outside of the coastal zone or within the coastal zone to a site permitted to receive fill.

(f) The plan shall also include temporary erosion control measures should grading or site preparation cease for a period of more than 30 days, including but not limited to: stabilization of all stockpiled fill, access roads, disturbed soils and cut and fill slopes with geotextiles and/or mats, sand bag barriers, silt fencing; temporary drains and swales. The plans shall also specify that all disturbed areas shall be seeded with native grass species and include the technical specifications for seeding the disturbed areas. These temporary erosion control measures shall be monitored and maintained until grading or construction operations resume.

(g) All temporary, construction related erosion control materials shall be comprised of bio-degradable materials (natural fiber, not photo-degradable plastics) and must be removed when permanent erosion control measures are in place. Bio-degradable erosion control materials may be left in place if they have been incorporated into the permanent landscaping design.

2. Construction Responsibilities

(a) No demolition or construction materials, debris, or waste shall be placed or stored where it may enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters or a storm drain, or be subject to wave, wind, rain, or tidal erosion and dispersion.

(b) No demolition or construction equipment, materials, or activity shall be placed in or occur in any location that would result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, wetlands or their buffers.

(c) Any and all debris resulting from demolition or construction activities shall be removed from the project site within 24 hours of completion of the project.


11

(d) Demolition or construction debris and sediment shall be removed from work areas each day that demolition or construction occurs to prevent the accumulation of sediment and other debris that may be discharged into coastal waters.

(e) All trash and debris shall be disposed in the proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end of every construction day.

(f) The applicant shall provide adequate disposal facilities for solid waste, including excess concrete, produced during demolition or construction.

(g) Debris shall be disposed of at a permitted disposal site or recycled at a permitted recycling facility. If the disposal site is located in the coastal zone, a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit shall be required before disposal can take place unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment or new permit is legally required.

(h) All stock piles and construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sides, shall be located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway, and shall not be stored in contact with the soil.

(i) Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. Thinners or solvents shall not be discharged into sanitary or storm sewer systems.

(j) The discharge of any hazardous materials into any receiving waters shall be prohibited.

(k) Spill prevention and control measures shall be implemented to ensure the proper handling and storage of petroleum products and other construction materials. Measures shall include a designated fueling and vehicle maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent any spillage of gasoline or related petroleum products or contact with runoff. The area shall be located as far away from the receiving waters and storm drain inlets as possible.

(l) Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) designed to prevent spillage and/or runoff of demolition or construction-related materials, and to contain sediment or contaminants associated with demolition or construction activity, shall be implemented prior to the on-set of such activity

(m) All BMPs shall be maintained in a functional condition throughout the duration of construction activity.

B. The final Interim Erosion Control and Construction Best Management Practices Plan shall be in conformance with the site/ development plans approved by the Coastal Commission. Any necessary changes to the Coastal Commission approved site/development plans required by a qualified, licensed professional shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the Coastal Commission approved final site/development plans shall occur without an amendment to the coastal development permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 7. Herbicide Use Herbicide use shall be restricted to the use of HabitatTM (Imazaoyr) herbicide for the elimination of non-native and invasive vegetation located within upland and transitional areas of the project site


12

for purposes of habitat restoration only. No use of any herbicide shall occur during the rainy season (November 1 – March 31) unless otherwise allowed by the Executive Director for good cause. In no instance shall herbicide application occur if wind speeds on site are greater than 5 mph or 48 hours prior to predicted rain. In the event that rain does occur, herbicide application shall not resume again until 72 hours after rain. 8. Conformance with the Requirements of the Resource Agencies. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that they have obtained all other necessary State permits that may be necessary for all aspects of the proposed project (including approvals from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water Quality Control Board, and Regional Water Quality Control Board unless evidence is submitted that such approval(s) are not required). In addition, by acceptance of this permit, the applicant agrees to obtain all necessary Federal permits that may be necessary for all aspects of the proposed project (including, but not limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Any change in the approved project which may be required by the above-stated agencies shall be submitted to the Executive Director in order to determine if the proposed change shall require a permit amendment pursuant to the requirements of the Coastal Act and the California Code of Regulations. 9. Assumption of Risk, Waiver of Liability and Indemnity. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowledges and agrees (i) that the site may be subject to hazards from flooding, erosion, liquefaction, and sea-level rise; (ii) to assume the risks to the applicant and the property that is the subject of this permit of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with this permitted development; (iii) to unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees for injury or damage from such hazards; and (iv) to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the Commission’s approval of the project against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, costs (including costs and fees incurred in defense of such claims), expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant shall submit a written agreement, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, incorporating all of the above terms of this condition. 10. Removal of Excavated Material and Demolition Debris A. Permanent stockpiling of material on site shall not be allowed. Sediment shall be retained at the designated temporary stockpile areas for dewatering, up to approximately three months, until removed to an appropriate approved disposal location either outside the Coastal Zone or to a site within the Coastal Zone permitted to receive such fill. B. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the County shall provide evidence to the Executive Director of the location of the disposal site for all excess excavated material and demolition debris from the site. If the disposal site is located in the Coastal Zone, the disposal site must have a valid coastal development permit for the disposal of fill material. If the disposal site


13

does not have a coastal permit, a coastal development permit will be required prior to the disposal of material. 11. Final Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Program. Prior to the issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a Final Habitat Revegetation and Enhancement Program prepared by a qualified environmental resource specialist(s) with experience in wetland, riparian, and upland restoration to prepare a final habitat restoration/enhancement plan and monitoring program, The program shall provide for the revegetation/enhancement for all wetland, riparian, and upland areas of the project site that will be either temporarily or permanently disturbed by construction/demolition activities. Revegetation/enhancement of disturbed habitat as mitigation for all wetland, riparian, and upland habitat areas permanently disturbed by construction activities shall occur consistent with the mitigation ratios described in the proposed Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants dated February 2015 which provide for mitigation at a ratio of 5:1 or greater for permanent impacts and revegetation/enhancement of all areas where habitat has been temporarily disturbed by construction/demolition activities at a ratio of 3:1 or greater.

A. This program shall be prepared by a qualified biologist or environmental resource specialist and

shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Onsite habitat enhancement shall include, at a minimum, the removal of any and all invasive plant species on the site and revegetation of all disturbed areas with appropriate native species of local genetic stock, including areas where invasive and non-native plants were removed. Plans must indicate that invasive plant species shall be removed from all development and restoration areas for the life of the project.

2. Indication as to the location, type, and height of any temporary fencing that will be used for revegetation. The plans shall also indicate when this fencing is to be removed.

3. Non-native or invasive species shall be removed by hand where feasible and an herbicide use shall be minimized. If the applicant’s environmental specialist or habitat restoration consultant determined that herbicide use is necessary to ensure successful re-establishment of native plant species on site, then herbicide use shall be restricted to the use of Glyphosate Aquamaster (previously Rodeo) herbicide for the elimination of non-native and invasive vegetation only.

4. Indication on plans that rodenticides containing any anticoagulant compounds (including, but not limited to, Warfarin, Brodifacoum, Bromadiolone or Diphacinone) shall not be used.

5. A baseline assessment of vegetation and habitats on site including detailed descriptions of existing conditions on site prior to any restoration/enhancement activities authorized by this coastal permit and photographs taken from pre-designated sites annotated to a copy of the site plans. The habitat restoration/enhancement plan shall delineate existing coastal wetland/upland/disturbed habitat types and show the distribution and abundance of any sensitive species.


14

6. A description of the goals of the restoration plan, including, as appropriate, topography, hydrology, vegetation types, sensitive species, and wildlife usage.

7. Documentation of performance standards, which provide a mechanism for making adjustments to the enhancement site when it is determined, through monitoring, or other means that the restoration techniques are not working.

8. Documentation of the necessary management and maintenance requirements, and provisions for timely remediation should the need arise.

9. A planting palette (seed mix and container plants), planting design, source of plant material, and plant installation. The planting palette shall be made up exclusively of native plants that are appropriate to the habitat and region and that are grown from seeds or vegetative materials obtained from local natural habitats so as to protect the genetic makeup of natural populations. Horticultural varieties shall not be used. Plantings shall be maintained in good growing condition throughout the life of the project and, whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with the revegetation requirements. No plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the California Native Plant Society, the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, or by the State of California shall be employed or allowed to naturalize or persist on the site. No plant species listed as a ‘noxious weed’ by the State of California or the U.S. Federal Government shall be utilized or maintained within the property.

10. Provision for collection and maintenance of all native wetland and upland plant species that would be disturbed by the project for future planting. Native wetland/upland seeds shall also be collected in anticipation of future plantings. The habitat restoration/enhancement plan shall provide a description of the methodology of how any existing wetland/upland plants/cuttings/seeds will be collected, stored, and used for re-vegetation of the site.

11. Sufficient technical detail on the restoration design including, at a minimum, a planting program including a description of planned site preparation, method and location of exotic species removal, timing of planting, plant locations and elevations on the baseline map, and maintenance timing and techniques.

12. A plan for documenting and reporting the physical and biological “as built” condition of the site within 30 days of completion of the initial restoration activities. The report shall describe the field implementation of the approved enhancement program in narrative and photographs, and report any problems in the implementation and their resolution.

B. Monitoring Program to monitor the enhancement. Said monitoring program shall set forth the

guidelines, criteria and performance standards by which the success of the enhancement and restoration shall be determined. The monitoring program shall include but not be limited to the following:

1. Interim and Final Success Criteria. Interim and final success criteria shall include, as appropriate: species diversity, total ground cover of vegetation, vegetative cover of dominant species and definition of dominants, wildlife usage, hydrology, and presence and abundance of sensitive species or other individual “target” species.


15

2. Interim Monitoring Reports. The applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, on an annual basis, for a period of five (5) years, a written monitoring report, prepared by a monitoring resource specialist indicating the progress and relative success or failure of the enhancement on the site. This report shall also include further recommendations and requirements for additional enhancement activities in order for the project to meet the criteria and performance standards. This report shall also include photographs taken from pre-designated sites (annotated to a copy of the site plans) indicating the progress of recovery at each of the sites. Each report shall be cumulative and shall summarize all previous results. Each report shall also include a “Performance Evaluation” section where information and results from the monitoring program are used to evaluate the status of the revegetation/enhancement project in relation to the interim performance standards and final success criteria. 3. Final Report. At the end of the five-year period, a final detailed report on the revegetation/enhancement shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director. If this report indicates that the revegetation/enhancement project has, in part, or in whole, been unsuccessful, based on the performance standards specified in the restoration plan, the applicant(s) shall submit within 90 days a revised or supplemental restoration program to compensate for those portions of the original program which did not meet the approved success criteria. The revised or supplemental program shall be submitted to the Executive Director, for review and approval. 4. Monitoring Period and Mid-Course Corrections. During the five-year monitoring period, all artificial inputs (e.g., irrigation, soil amendments, plantings) shall be removed except for the purposes of providing mid-course corrections or maintenance to insure the survival of the revegetation/enhancement site. If these inputs are required beyond the first two years, then the monitoring program shall be extended for every additional year that such inputs are required, so that the success and sustainability of the revegetation/enhancement is insured. The revegetation/enhancement site shall not be considered successful until it is able to survive without artificial inputs.

C. The applicant shall undertake development in accordance with the final approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit or a new coastal development permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no new amendment or permit is legally required.

IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS: The Commission hereby finds and declares: A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The County of Santa Barbara Public Works Department is proposing to replace the existing 34 ft. wide, 137 ft. long, structurally deficient Goleta Beach Park Bridge with a new 53 ½ ft. wide and 168 ft. long bridge. The project includes: (1) construction of north and south bank end diaphragm


16

abutments founded on eleven piles in total; (2) construction of one supporting pier founded on four piles in the north bank of the slough; (3) a 2.5-5 ft. tall and 30 ft. long retaining wall at the north abutment; (4) the removal of the existing bridge including 18 piles and two abutments; (5) installation of a new culvert to the adjacent parcel located between Sandspit Road and SR 217 to restore tidal influence and improve coastal habitat in a portion of Goleta Slough; and; (6) implementation of wetland/riparian habitat restoration program (Exhibits 1-4, and 14). The Caltrans Bridge inspection conducted in 2008 identified cracks in several columns necessitating immediate emergency repairs. Under authorization of an emergency permit, the County previously installed two additional steel support piles and an I-beam cross member to provide temporary support to the existing bridge until a permanent solution could be implemented. The County’s engineers have since determined that it is infeasible to repair the existing bridge, due to the extent of its deterioration. Thus, the County is proposing the replacement of the bridge as the long-term solution in order to ensure public safety and maintain public access to Goleta Beach County Park. The new bridge will be approximately 19 ft. wider than the existing bridge and will be located approximately 60 ft. upstream from the existing bridge to be demolished. The increase in width is necessary, in part; to allow for the replacement of the two existing 3 ft. wide sidewalks on the bridge with a new 12 ft. wide, class 1 bicycle path with a 5 ft. wide public pedestrian path which will connect to the existing bicycle/pedestrian paths on each side of the bridge. In addition, the project includes the demolition of the existing bridge and removal of 18 piles within the open water portion of the Goleta Slough estuary and implementation of wetland/riparian habitat restoration program. The new bridge has been designed in a manner that will avoid the need for the installation of any piles within the open water portion of the estuary. Although the project is located in Santa Barbara County, which has a certified LCP, the majority of the project is located within the retained coastal development permit jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. The County requested that, as provided under Section 30601.3.(a) of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission process the County’s entire application, for all portions of the project, as a consolidated permit and permit the structure under a Coastal Development Permit for both agencies. The sequencing of the bridge replacement would be implemented in two stages. Stage one would involve construction of the new bridge and take place over eight months between April and November of Year One. Stage one includes the following: 1) set-up staging areas; 2) construct temporary access path to slough and shoring limits for pile installation; 3) installation of new piles; 4) installation of concrete box girder (the bridge); 5) reroute traffic to new bridge, remove staging area. Stage two would involve removal of the original bridge and restoration and would take place between May and July of Year Two. Stage two includes the following: 1) setting up staging area; 2) isolate work area with block netting and seine nets; 4) partial dewatering activities; 2) deck removal; 3) pile removal; 4) restoration activities. Bridge Design The existing Goleta Beach County Park Bridge over the Goleta Slough (Exhibits 5, 11) would be removed and replaced with a similar bridge approximately 60 feet upstream from the existing bridge. The project involves the removal of 18 concrete piles that are approximately 15 inches in diameter that support the existing bridge and which are all located within the open water area of the


17

slough channel. The new bridge will be 31 feet longer than the existing bridge and will only have a single support consisting of four piles, each 3 to 4 feet in diameter that will be located entirely on the northern slough bank (outside the open water area of the slough channel under typical tidal conditions). The new bridge width would be 53.5 ft., which is 19.5 ft. wider than the original bridge. The additional width would allow improved non-vehicular access including a wider pedestrian walkway and a 12 ft. wide Class 1 bicycle path, both of which would be segregated from the traffic lanes. The replacement bridge would be a cast-in place concrete box girder bridge and would be supported at each end (the north and south bank of the slough) by end diaphragm type abutments founded on six cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles on the north bank and five CIDH piles on the south bank. Each pile will be 3ft. to 4ft. wide and 75ft.-120ft. deep. The support pier will consist of four piles, each 3 to 4 feet in diameter and connected to 5 to 6 foot in diameter CIDH pile shafts, approximately 75 to 120 feet in length. This supporting pier will be located in the north bank of the slough, outside of the normal wetted perimeter of the channel. The proposed bridge will be constructed approximately 15.5 feet above mean sea level (NAVD-88). Construction The proposed project will occur in two stages which will allow access to the park to be maintained throughout construction and will minimize impacts on resources. The following describes the two stages of construction/demolition operations: Stage 1 would span up to eight months (April through October). During Stage 1 the CIDH piles for the new bridge would be constructed using wet construction methods with slurry. Dewatering will only occur within shoring limits of the new piles (Exhibit 7). The new bridge deck will be constructed involving the cast-in-place concrete box girder and all associated false work. Existing utilities would be removed from the existing bridge and relocated on the new bridge. The retaining wall at the north abutment would be constructed. Finally, traffic would be rerouted to the new bridge and the staging area would be removed (Exhibits 12, 13). Stage 2 would span up to eight weeks between May and July and would occur in the year following the construction of the replacement bridge. The main components of this construction stage include the de-watering activities and bridge removal (Exhibit 8). In preparation of dewatering the work area within the slough, the area would be isolated with block netting and seine nets to remove aquatic species. Eight 48 inch in diameter culverts would then be placed in the slough and covered with rock fill to serve also as a temporary work platform. Following the removal of the existing bridge piles and bridge deck, the temporary fill and piles would be removed and the banks would be restored with salvaged plants and planting of native species. The northern parcel restoration would take place during stage 2 and involve the excavation of an entry and receiving pit, installation of a 48 in culvert, and restoration.


18

B. PROJECT AREA AND BACKGROUND Project Area The project area is located at the entrance to Goleta Beach County Park and consists of 7.3 acres of land within and adjacent to Goleta Slough, immediately west of Highway 217 (Exhibits 1-4). Located at 5986 Sandspit Road in the Goleta area of Santa Barbara County, the project area includes Sandspit Road north and south of the slough, Bridge 51C-0158 (APN 071-200-017), the cloverleaf interchange parcel (APN 071-200-013), and portions of the Goleta Beach Park recreational area (Exhibits 1-4). These areas include the locations of the bridge construction and demolition, equipment staging areas, mitigation areas, and temporary access roads into the slough. Land use within and north of Goleta Slough is designated as Public Utility, and the land south of Goleta Slough is designated as Public Park. Inside and adjacent to the project area are parking lots, buildings, and landscaped recreational areas associated with Goleta Beach Park. The existing bridge spans the Goleta Slough, which conveys flows drained from approximately 11.5 square miles. The slough empties into the Pacific Ocean through an intermittently opened mouth at the Goleta Beach Park. If the sandspit is “open”, the ocean provides tidal and wave influence into the estuary, If the sandspit is “closed,” tidal action into the estuary is blocked. The Goleta Bridge provides access to the Goleta Beach County Park, which is the largest and most popular public beach in the urban areas of the South Coast of Santa Barbara County, west of the City of Santa Barbara. The park provides access to the longest easily accessible public beach in the Goleta Valley area for beach-going and coastal recreation activities including swimming, kayaking, paddle boarding, boating, and fishing. The park also provides important developed park facilities in a unique coastal setting, including extensive lawn areas, individual and group barbeque sites, and a children’s playground. Goleta Beach County Park is the most frequented of Santa Barbara County Parks, visited by approximately 1.5 million people annually. The park also provides substantial public coastal access parking adjacent to the beach (601 spaces) that is free to the public year-round. Past Commission Actions On October 3, 2008, the Coastal Commission approved Emergency Permit No. 4-08-073-G for driving two new temporary steel support pilings into the slough and adding an I-beam cross member to support the bridge which was in imminent danger of failure. This work was performed in response to the May 2008 Bridge Inspection that identified several cracks in the bridge columns and made recommendations for repairing, replacing, or mitigating the cracked columns. The emergency mitigation work was performed in order to keep the bridge open to traffic in the interim before a permanent solution was determined. In addition to the emergency work for the Goleta Bridge, areas around the current project including the Goleta Beach County Park and adjacent slough channels have been subject to several previous actions addressing problems of wave erosion on park facilities and flooding in surrounding areas. Most recently on May 13, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved CDP No. 4-14-0687 for the permanent authorization of an as-built rock revetment, intended to protect existing structures and upland park facilities from erosion during period storm events.


19

Moreover, the Commission has also acted on several other coastal development permit applications for development at Goleta Beach County Park and the surrounding areas of the slough including four Coastal Development Permits (CDPs), 4-93-205, 4-00-206, 4-05-139, and 4-11-069 (Santa Barbara County), which were approved by the Commission, in 1993, 2000, 2005, and 2012 respectively, to the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District for the programmatic dredging of the slough/creeks and disposal of between 20,000 to 200,000 cu. yds. of material per year in the surfzone of Goleta Beach for the purpose of beach nourishment. Each of the four permits was approved by the Commission on a time-limited basis, authorizing implementation of the program for a period of 5 years. Although these permits had potentially allowed for a maximum quantity of 100,000 - 200,000 cu. yds. of beach nourishment material to be placed on the beach each year, County staff have indicated that these previously approved dredging operations typically only generated between 10,000 to 70,000 cu. yds. (over a 2 – 3 year period) of material suitable for beach nourishment at Goleta Beach. Further, subsequent to the period during which the permit authorized development of CDP 4-05-139 in October 2010 but prior to Commission approval of CDP 4-11-069 in May 2012, Santa Barbara County Flood Control District received two emergency permits for dredging/desilting activities in Goleta Slough and the adjoining creeks in February 2010 (CDP 4-10-118-G) and in January 2011 (CDP 4-11-015-G). The emergency activities were necessary due to sediment accumulation from fires in the Santa Barbara/Goleta area and subsequent heavy rain events. The emergency permits required all dredged/desilted material to meet the testing criteria previously outlined in CDP 4-05-139 prior to surfzone disposal at Goleta Beach. CDP 4-11-069, which was approved in May 2012, authorizes slough/creek dredging and deposition of dredged sand material in the surfzone at Goleta Beach County Park through May 9, 2017. CDP 4-11-069 allows Santa Barbara County Flood Control District to conduct routine maintenance as-needed, such that any need for future emergency operations will be minimal. Although much of this material is lost to the littoral cell because it is placed in the surf zone, this program has substantially augmented the sand supply on Goleta Beach. In addition, CDP 4-09-068, approved by the Commission on March 10, 2010, had authorized the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District to implement an annual dredging program for a 1.4 mile reach of Atascadero Creek that included removal of 2,000–30,000 cu. yds. of sediment on an as-needed basis and potential placement of suitable excavated material in the surfzone at Goleta Beach County Park. CDP 4-09-068 had the same five year permit term, and the same sediment testing requirements as the above-mentioned CDP’s. This permit authorized work until March 10, 2015. However, prior to the end of permit authorization, Santa Barbara County Flood Control District submitted a new permit application (4-14-1900) requesting authorization for another five year term of the same program. CDP Application 4-14-1900 is complete and tentatively scheduled for the Commission’s July 2015 hearing along with this application. Further, three separate CDPs 4-00-193, 4-01-136, and 4-02-128 (Santa Barbara County Parks) were approved by the Commission in 2000, 2001, and 2002 respectively, for construction of an annual temporary winter sand berm at Goleta Beach in an attempt to protect upland park facilities from wave caused erosion. Although CDPs 4-00-193 and 4-01-136 each only authorized construction of


20

the berm for a single season, CDP 4-02-128 authorized the seasonal berm construction on a seasonal basis for a three-year period, which expired in spring of 2005. In addition, on March 16, 2005, the Commission also approved CDP 4-02-074 to allow the Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment (BEACON) to implement a five-year program to place a maximum of 791,500 cubic yards per year of suitable beach replenishment material at five separate beach fill sites within Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties (including the deposition of up to 100,000 cu. yds./year of beach replenishment material at Goleta Beach County Park). BEACON is a joint powers authority whose members consist of the different local government agencies in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, including Santa Barbara County itself. However, CDP 4-02-074 (BEACON) was only valid through March 16, 2010 and has expired. In addition, CDP 4-02-054 (BEACON) was also approved in July 2003 by the Commission for a one-time beach nourishment demonstration program at Goleta Beach utilizing up to 150,000 cubic yards of sand from the West Beach area of Santa Barbara Harbor and placing it within a 2,200 foot long by 400 foot wide beach fill deposition site at Goleta Beach County Park. All work authorized by CDP 4-02-005, including the placement of 150,000 cu. yds. of sand at Goleta Beach County Park has been previously completed. C. ALTERATION OF COASTAL WATERS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Coastal Act section 30233(a), as incorporated in the certified LCP, states:

The diking, filling, or dredging of open waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:

1. New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities,

including commercial facilities. 2. Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing

navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps.

3. In open coastal water, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.

4. Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines.

5. Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.

6. Restoration purposes. 7. Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities.

Coastal Act section 30233(c), as incorporated in the certified LCP, states:


21

In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, “Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California”, shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, [and] nature study,…

Section 30240 of the Coastal Act, as incorporated in the certified LCP, protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) by restricting development in and adjacent to ESHA. Section 30240 states:

(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas.

(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.

Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, defines an environmentally sensitive area as:

"Environmentally sensitive area" means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

The County of Santa Barbara Public Works Department is proposing to replace the structurally deficient Goleta Beach County Park Bridge, which crosses the Goleta Slough in the County of Santa Barbara. Additionally the County is proposing to implement habitat restoration of an adjacent parcel that is poorly connected to the Goleta Slough and primarily supports ruderal vegetation at present time. The Goleta Beach County Park Bridge connects Sandspit Road to the county park and provides the only vehicular access to important public recreational facilities including a fishing pier, picnic areas, a children’s playground, 4,000 feet of south-facing beach frontage, a restaurant, and year-round free public parking. The Goleta Slough is fed by five major drainages including Tecolotito, Carneros, San Pedro/Las Vegas, San Jose, and Atascadero Creeks. Of those drainages, the outflow channel of Goleta Slough, which is crossed by the Goleta County Park Bridge, drains an area of 11.5 sq. miles, starting at approximately 3,000 feet of elevation. The channel then wraps around Goleta Beach County Park along the park’s northern boundary, outletting through Goleta Beach County Park property, east (downcoast) of the developed facilities. The project area includes 7.3 acres of land within and adjacent to Goleta Slough and contains wetlands, upland areas associated with riparian habitat, landscaped, and ruderal areas. Wetland vegetation in the project area consists of the Sarcocorina pacifica Herbaceous Alliance, which is analogous to southern coastal salt marsh. This type of vegetation is commonly seen along


22

intertidal shores of bays and estuaries. Salt marsh habitat is characterized by highly productive, herbaceous, salt-tolerant hydrophytes, in hydric soils subject to regular tidal inundation by salt water for at least part of each year. Species observed in the project area include Pacific swampfire (Sarcocornia pacifica), western marsh rosemary (Limonium californicum), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and marsh jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). Approximately 1.6 acres of southern coastal salt marsh is included in the project area. The vegetation on the slough banks is identified as coastal bluff scrub (Encelia californica Shrubland Alliance), which is likely due to past disturbances and restoration activities. Thus, it is classified as restored Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub. Shrub species include quail brush (Atriplex lentiformis var. breweri), California encelia (Encelia californica), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coastal golden yarrow (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), costa morning glory (Calystegia macrostgia), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Approximately 0.88 acres of restored southern bluff scrub occurs within the project site. The Goleta Slough watershed and drainage provides habitat for important sensitive aquatic resources and qualifies as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). Tidewater goby, arrow goby, yellow fin goby, cheekspot goby, steelhead trout, Asian glass shrimp, California killifish, cancer crab, longjaw mudsucker, mosquitofish, Pacific staghorn sculpin, topsmelt, yellow perch, fathead minnow, diamond turbot, California halibut, Shiner surfperch, three-spined stickleback, prickly sculpin, and striped mullet have been found in the slough. Two federally listed endangered species including the tidewater goby (as a year-round resident) and southern steelhead (during upstream and downstream migration periods) and one California Species of Concern, the western pond turtle, are found in the slough. The slough and its margins are used for resting and feeding by numerous species of migratory and resident birds, including waterfowl, diving and wading fishers, and shorebirds. Common species found in and adjacent to the project area include song sparrows and common yellow throats. Many other species are commonly observed using the lagoon, including great blue herons and great egrets. Additionally white-tailed kite (California Species of Concern, Fully Protected) and Belding’s savannah sparrow (State Endangered) are special status species that are known to be in the vicinity of the project area. As discussed in detail in Section IV-A above, the County of Santa Barbara Public Works Department is proposing to replace the structurally deficient Goleta Beach County Park bridge over the Goleta Slough in Santa Barbara County. The project would also slightly improve the hydraulic conveyance of the slough channel through the use of only one row of piles (located on the upper bank) to support the new bridge instead of the existing four rows of piles that support the existing bridge. Specifically, the four rows of piles for the existing bridge to be demolished are comprised of 16 piles that are 15 inches in diameter and two pile that are 1.5 ft. in diameter and which are located within the portion of the estuary channel that is normally inundated would be replaced with one row of four piles that are 3-4 ft. in diameter that would be located entirely on the bank of the estuary (above the normal water line). The removal of all support piles from the open water portion of the estuary channel would result in a net increase in the area on site that consists of wetlands and open water estuarine habitat. The project would also involve the restoration of a mudflat wetland area located on a parcel immediately north of the project site that is currently connected to the slough via one 24 inch in


23

diameter culvert. The existing mudflat wetland area is substantially isolated, from a hydrologic perspective, from the other parts of the slough by Sandspit Road and Highway 217. A new 48 inch in diameter culvert will be installed just east of the existing bridge at a lower elevation in order to provide increased tidal flow to the existing, isolated mud flat wetland area. Additionally, some excavation work to adjust the entry and exit pit elevation is anticipated. The new culvert will allow sufficient tidal flows into the northern parcel, thereby, returning the parcel to a tidally influenced segment of the Goleta Slough. The restoration of tidal flow to this area of the slough is expected to support the growth of salt marsh plant species and the expansion of coastal habitat. As part of this project, as proposed, the existing invasive and non-native plant species currently found in the northern parcel will be removed and replaced with appropriate native species. In total, the project will result in the restoration of approximately 108,836 square feet of wetland and riparian areas resulting from both the removal of the existing bridge and the restoration of the northern adjacent parcel. Specifically, the removal of all support piles from the open water portion of the estuary channel would result in a net increase in the area on site that consists of wetlands and open water estuarine habitat. Despite this benefit to open water wetland habitat on the project site, the replacement bridge will still have some unavoidable wetland impacts resulting from the installation of the four new piles. Although the new piles will be installed on the banks of the slough outside the area of the slough channel that is typically inundated under typical tidal conditions, this area of the site is also delineated as wetland habitat. Thus, although the proposed project will result in the removal of fill from open coastal waters/wetlands, it will still result in some unavoidable fill of wetland habitat on the upper banks of the slough. Although this constitutes fill of wetlands according to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, there will be a net increase in coastal waters and wetland habitat where there is no fill due to the reduction in the total number of piles in the estuary. In addition to the four support piles, the new bridge will have two abutments consisting of eleven piles in total and a retaining wall will be installed along the north approach. These bridge components will be located in the existing bluff scrub vegetation, which is connected to the wetland areas. While the project will result in an increase in coastal wetlands and estuarine habitat, construction of the project will temporarily impact 41,981 square ft. (0.95 acres) of sensitive habitat and wetland areas within the Goleta Slough. As described in Section IV-A, the project will involve partial dewatering for pile installation using slide rail shoring and water diversion of the creek via culverts and temporary fill for periods up to 8 months in duration. Installation of culverts and temporary fill for dewatering during bridge removal would temporarily impact 9,337 square ft. of open water wetlands located in the project area. Additionally, construction activities, including pile drilling, grading, and dewatering could lead to disruption of habitat for aquatic species such as the tidewater goby, steelhead trout, and avian species. The project would, therefore, result in the fill of the Goleta Slough pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and has the potential to impact sensitive biological resources protected under Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. Allowable Uses The proposed project is necessary to maintain public access to the important low-cost recreation facilities at the Goleta Beach County Park, which is visited by more than 1.5 million visitors annually. Although a benefit of the bridge replacement is that there will be a decrease in the amount


24

of wetland fill in Goleta Slough, the project nonetheless triggers Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act because the bridge replacement includes the placement of support piles in wetlands and, thus, does involve some new fill of wetlands. Therefore this project must then be analyzed for consistency with Section 30233(a) and (c). Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act identifies seven allowable uses for the dredging, diking and filling of coastal waters. According to Section 30233(a) filling of coastal waters can be allowed for, among other purposes, incidental public service and restoration purposes. The proposed project involves the replacement of a bridge in which the primary purpose is to provide public access to extremely important active and passive public recreation facilities and resources. It is important to note that the bridge will replace an existing bridge and will not increase vehicular capacity on the road. As previously stated, the project also serves to reduce the overall fill of the Goleta Slough by replacing four rows of piles within the open water portion of the channel with only one row of piles on the banks of the slough outside of the open water portion of the channel. Additionally, in other cases, the Commission has found that the maintenance of roads, including replacement of bridges, can be considered an allowable use as an incidental public service under 30233(a)(4), provided it does not increase the existing capacity. The Court of Appeal has recognized this definition of incidental public service as a permissible interpretation of the Coastal Act. In the case of Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al., v. The Superior Court of San Diego County (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 493, 517, the court found that:

… we accept Commission's interpretation of sections 30233 and 30240… In particular we note that under Commission's interpretation, incidental public services are limited to temporary disruptions and do not usually include permanent roadway expansions. Roadway expansions are permitted only when no other alternative exists and the expansion is necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity.

Because of the reasons stated above, the fill associated with this bridge replacement project can be classified as being for an incidental public service purpose, thereby meeting the definition of allowable uses for fill of coastal waters as defined by Section 30233. In addition, Section 30240 provides that uses within an environmentally sensitive habitat area shall not be approved unless the uses are dependent on the sensitive resource. In this case, the project will result in approximately 41,382 sq. ft. of temporary and 6,809 sq. ft. of permanent impacts to areas of the site which constitute environmentally sensitive habitat areas, including the upland habitat areas associated with the Goleta Slough wetlands. While the proposed project will provide restoration benefits to the Goleta Slough resulting from the removal of piles from the open water portion of the slough channel, the new bridge is not “dependent” on wetland and estuarine environmentally sensitive habitat areas. However, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act specifically allows for fill of coastal waters for incidental public services and flood-control purposes, provided that all the requirements of that section are met and the sensitive habitat areas in question are part of the greater wetland complex, so Section 30233 applies to them as well. Section 30233 provides more specific direction regarding allowable development within sensitive wetland habitat areas than Section 30240 and clearly anticipates dredging, diking, and filling of coastal waters for incidental public uses in sensitive wetland habitats. Thus, Section 30233 is, therefore, the controlling provision when a wetland is also an ESHA. Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999), 71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 514-515. In other words, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, in fact, provides that


25

the Commission may approve incidental public uses in certain circumstances, even though such activities do not comply with the resource dependent tests of Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act. Potential Alternatives The Goleta Beach County Park Bridge provides the only vehicular access to the county park, which is visited by more than 1.5 million visitors annually. As such, the primary goal of this project is to replace a structurally deficient bridge that provides access to an important low-cost public resource. The County submitted an alternatives analysis prepared by the engineering consultants which explores five alternatives to the project. Alternatives identified and analyzed include: (1) two-span, cast-in-place concrete box girder replacement, (2) a single span concrete bridge replacement, (3) rehabilitate the existing bridge, (4) steel-girder replacement, and (5) cast-in-place pre-stressed concrete slab replacement. Each alternative was examined based on environmental impacts, vertical constraints, and costs. Alternative one became the preferred alternative based on these criteria and alternatives two through five had significant reasons rendering each an infeasible option. For example, although a single-span bridge would eliminate the need for any foundations within the slough or its banks, it would necessitate the roadway vertical profile to be raised significantly, which would then have greater permanent fills for the approaches and a greater environmental footprint. In addition, rehabilitating the existing bridge was an infeasible option because of the advanced deteriorated condition of the piles and the concrete components of the bridge structure. The piles will continue to deteriorate and external support repairs similar to the ones installed in 2008 are considered to be temporary and not intended for long-term service loads. The other two options reviewed were alternative bridge types. Both were eliminated as options due to the necessary maintenance for a steel girder replacement bridge and the need for a larger foundation to support the pre-stressed concrete slab replacement bridge. The no-build project alternative was not considered as an alternative because the existing bridge would continue to deteriorate and would require additional emergency repairs, which would create a safety hazard. In conclusion, the Commission finds that the proposed project is the least damaging feasible alternative to replace the structurally deficient Goleta Beach County Park Bridge. Mitigation Measures and Avoidance of Significant Disruption Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that the project avoid significant disruption to the sensitive resources and Sections 30233 requires that where fill or alteration of coastal waters is allowed, feasible mitigation measures should be implemented to minimize adverse environmental effects. In this case, the County has proposed mitigation measures related to the protection of sensitive habitats, wetlands, and coastal waters (Exhibit 11). In addition, several measures include timing of construction activities to minimize disturbance to habitats, erosion control measures, revegetation, and the proposed dewatering and fish relocation measures described in previous sections will be implemented. As previously stated, the project will serve to reduce fill within the Goleta Slough estuary by replacing four rows of piles within the open water portion of the channel with only one row of piles on the banks of the slough outside of the open water portion of the channel. However, the


26

construction of the new bridge, including installation of the bridge abutments, roadway approaches, and the one row of four piles on the bank of the estuary would still result in the permanent loss of approximately 6,809 sq. ft. of ESHA and wetland areas. In addition, the project would also result in approximately 41,382 sq. ft. of temporary impacts to ESHA and wetland habitat areas from construction and demolition activities. In this case, the County is proposing to mitigate these permanent impacts at a ratio of 5:1 and temporary impacts at a ratio of 3:1 which exceeds the mitigation ratios the Commission has typically applied to similar projects in past permits actions. Specifically, the County is proposing to restore all disturbed areas on site, including the location where the existing bridge will be demolished and approximately 87,120 square feet of wetland and riparian areas on an adjacent parcel to the project site. The applicant has submitted an initial plan for restoration and enhancement activities that will include removal of non-native plants in the project area and replanting the banks of the slough and estuary in the project area with native riparian scrub, dune, and wetland plants. In order to ensure that the restoration and enhancement of the wetland, riparian, and upland areas on site are successfully implemented, Special Condition Eleven (11) requires the County to submit a final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which will include additional restoration and success criteria. Special Condition 11 will also require planting of native plant species of local genotype on all disturbed areas. The plan also requires monitoring of all restoration areas for five years, or until all areas have successfully been restored according to success criteria outlined in the plans. Special Condition Eight (8) also requires the County to conform with the requirements of other resource agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Board, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the proposed project, including all construction and restoration activities. In order to further ensure that the proposed activities minimize impacts on sensitive species and coastal waters, Special Condition Three (3) requires the applicant to obtain the services of an environmental resources specialist to survey all areas within 500 feet of the project site prior to construction, and be present during all construction, grading, excavation, vegetation removal activities within all wetland areas of the site including installation and removal of the coffer dam and other dewatering measures. The monitor would immediately direct the County to cease work should any breach in permit compliance occur should any nesting or reproductive behavior is observed, or if any other unforeseen habitat issues arrive. Special Condition Three (3) further establishes that if significant impacts or damage occurs to sensitive habitat, wildlife species, or coastal waters, the County shall be required to submit a revised or supplemental program to adequately mitigate such impacts. The County also proposes to remove non-native vegetation manually, and to augment manual removal with herbicides if necessary. In previous permit actions, the Commission has allowed for the use of HabitatTM (Imazapyr) within sensitive wetland and riparian areas when it was found that use of an herbicide was necessary for habitat restoration and that there were no feasible alternative that would result in fewer adverse effects to the habitat value of the site. HabitatTM is an Imazapyr formulation of herbicide approved for aquatic use and has been shown to be more effective at one-tenth the application rate for glysophate sprays, and for at least half the cost per acre. In order to minimize the potential for introduction of herbicide into the aquatic environment or onto adjacent non-targeted vegetation, Special Condition Seven (7) restricts the use of herbicides to hand-


27

painting of HabitatTM (Imazaoyr) and prohibits spraying of herbicide, use of herbicide during the rainy season, prior to predicted rain, or within 72 hours after rain. Tidewater Goby, Southern Steelhead Trout, and Other Aquatic Resources As noted above, the Goleta Slough estuary provides habitat for several invertebrate and fish species, including the tidewater goby (Eucyclobius newberryi) and southern steelhead trout (Oncoryhynchus mykiss). The tidewater goby is a federally listed endangered species and a state species of special concern. The current final rule for tidewater goby critical habitat was published on February 6, 2013.The Goleta Slough, and site of the proposed project, is designated as Santa Barbara Critical Habitat Unit SB-9. Tidewater gobies are typically found in the upper ends of lagoons in brackish water. Gobies have been found in waters with salinity that range from 0 to 40 parts per thousand. They are bottom dwellers and are typically found at depths of less than 3 feet. Gobies typically exhibit an extreme seasonal variation in population size that reflects the variation in salinity, temperature, and hydrologic conditions in a coastal lagoon. Previous tidewater goby protocol surveys in Atascadero, San Jose, and San Pedro Creek conducted in 2008 for the Santa Barbara Flood Control District confirmed the presence of tidewater goby in the project vicinity. The southern steelhead trout is a federally listed endangered species and a state species of special concern. NOAA fisheries have designed portions of the Goleta Slough as Critical Habitat for steelhead. Steelhead trout typically migrate to marine waters after spending one to two years in fresh water. They then spend two or three years in the ocean before returning to streams to spawn. This section of Goleta Slough functions primarily as migration area for steelhead, which indicates that steelhead presence within the project area would likely coincide with rain-induced periods of elevated creek discharge seen between November and May. As construction of the project will occur between May and October, NMFS does not expect adult or juvenile steelhead to be migrating through the project area during construction operations. Additionally, qualitative field surveys undertaken in the project vicinity between 1993 and 2008 did not document the presence of steelhead, further suggesting that direct effects to steelhead are unlikely. Potential to impacts goby and steelhead populations do still exist due to the noise and vibrations associated with the removal of the existing bridge and construction of a new bridge. However, the County proposes to use “Cast-in-drilled-hole” pile installation method which utilizes a crane and wet construction methods with slurry during May 1 to October 31, which is outside of the steelhead migration period. Special Condition Two (2) therefore specifies the time in which no work within the slough channel can occur, in order to avoid steelhead migration. In addition, construction of the proposed project includes partial dewatering of a 60-foot-long reach of Goleta Slough estuary for up to 2 months. Prior to any dewatering all fish species would be captured and relocated from the construction area. During partial dewatering, shoring will be installed along certain areas of the slough banks to control seepage and caving. Eight 48” wide CMP culverts would be placed within the slough channel and would allow the creek to flow though the dewatered work area. Temporary fill comprised of clean sand and crushed rock will be placed over the culverts to about 1.5 feet above high tide elevation. In order to avoid impacts to goby and southern steelhead, the County, has proposed that the partial dewatering of the 60-foot section of creek occur during the dry season from May to July. Special


28

Condition Two (2) specifies the timing of the creek dewatering to minimize direct potential effects to the above mentioned species of special status. In addition to the above-mentioned measures, in order to avoid potential impacts to sensitive fish species within the project area, Special Condition Four (4) requires the applicant provide a tidewater goby, steelhead, and aquatic species management plan. This plan shall provide measures for protection of aquatic species, including monitoring of the estuary prior to construction, biologist monitoring of all creek/estuary operations, recovery and relocation of fish species, and post-project monitoring. Special Condition Four (4) requires the County to submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a final version of this plan that shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented during project construction. Sensitive Bird Species The lagoon and its margins are used for resting and feeding by numerous species of migratory and resident birds including waterfowl, diving and wading fishers, and shorebirds. Bird use of the lagoon varies from month to month. Spring is a season of relatively low bird diversity and abundance. In early June, seabird use of the lagoon and beach area increases. The late summer and fall migration bring large number of shorebird species into the Santa Barbara area that remain in the area until the spring migration in mid-March. Two special status bird species noted by the Natural Environmental Study (2013) include white-tailed kite and Belding’s Savannah sparrow. The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is a fully protected species and a year-round resident throughout coastal California and near agricultural areas. Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sanwichensis beldingi), is a state endangered species listed in 1974 and is endemic to coastal salt marshes from Southern Santa Barbara County to Sand Diego County. Although these species are regularly observed at Goleta Beach Park, there are no documented occurrences of Belding’s savannah sparrow in the project area. The project has the potential to disturb sensitive bird species in and around the project area due to noise and vibration, dust, and disturbance associated with construction. The County has proposed the installation of piles using the “cast-in-place” method which uses a crane and wet construction methods with slurry and will serve to minimize construction noise compared to using the pile driving method. In order to ensure that potential adverse impacts to sensitive bird species are avoided, Special Condition Three (3) requires biological monitoring by a qualified environmental specialist of all areas within 500 feet of the project area prior to construction/demolition activities. Special Condition Three (3) further requires that if any sensitive species are found in the project area, the County’s environmental specialist shall initiate a relocation or avoidance program for the species that are not nesting or exhibiting reproductive behavior. Additionally, if any species exhibits reproduction or nesting behavior in the study area, Special Condition requires that the development be stopped unless authorizations to proceed are obtained from the Executive Director in consultation with USFWS and CDFW.

In summary, the project is consistent with section 30233(a) and 30240 for the reasons stated above and because there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and the fill is for an incidental public service purpose. However, the Commission also notes that, even if the purpose of this project and the associated fill were not to qualify as an incidental public service purpose, the project


29

would likely still be approvable, as it would then present a conflict between policies, with Section 30233(a) prohibiting it, but other sections that promote coastal access and recreation mandating approval of some form of replacement bridge, given the major public access and recreation benefits associated with the project, and the fact that it is the least environmentally damaging alternative, in part due to the net reduction in the amount of fill that would result from the project. Due to the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with 30233 and 30240 of the Coastal Act and the Santa Barbara County LCP policies 1-1, which incorporates Section 30233 and 30240 of the Coastal Act. D. HAZARDS AND GEOLOGIC STABILITY Coastal Act section 30253, as incorporated in the County’s LCP, states, in pertinent part, that new development shall:

(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.

(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

Section 30253 of the Coastal Act mandates that new development minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. The project area is subject to several hazards, including earthquakes, erosion, flooding, tidal action, and storm surge. The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a structurally deficient bridge and to decrease the fill of the Goleta Slough. The project would, therefore, reduce the hazards currently experienced in the project area. The project site subsurface is composed of artificial fill and alluvium consisting of dense sand with silt and thin interbedded clay. Monterey Formation bedrock was encountered at 63 feet at the south abutment, but not encountered at the maximum explored depth of 81 feet at the site of the north abutment. The applicant’s geologic and engineering consultants, Fugro Consultants, Inc., prepared the Geotechnical Report for the Goleta Beach Park Bridge (February 2015) and follow-up Analysis (May 2015) that includes recommendations in the design and construction of the project in order to maximize the safety of the project given the geologic and hydraulic conditions around the project area. In their follow-up analysis contained within a letter dated May 21, 2015, Fugro Consultants stated that based on their review of the project plans and specifications required by Quincy Engineering, the proposed project adequately addresses the site conditions identified in their earlier report. Additionally, the applicant’s geologic and engineering consultants found that the proposed development was adequate from a geologic and engineering standpoint and would not contribute to any adverse geologic conditions on site or to adjacent areas. In order to ensure the recommendations of the applicant’s consultants are incorporated into the final project plans to ensure geologic and engineering stability, Special Condition One (1) requires the County to incorporate all


30

recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical and hydraulic reports submitted for the project into the final design and construction plans for the project. The replacement bridge has been designed with an approximate design life of 75 years within a marine environment with reinforcement against corrosion and earthquakes. This results in the expected bridge design life ending in approximately 2091. To analyze the suitability of the site for the proposed development relative to potential hazards that could be experienced in that timeframe, the County submitted Design Hydraulic Study for the Goleta Slough Bridge, dated June 2, 2014, prepared by Avila and Associates, Consulting Engineers, Inc. This study analyzed the water surface elevation for the existing and proposed bridge incorporating sea level rise. The study modeled several water levels for the slough channel including a “highest observed water level (HOWL) with a maximum sea level rise elevation estimate for the specific location (55 inches). The results of the model indicated that bridge will clear this extremely high water event. Additionally, the Design Hydraulic Study provides information regarding the design of the replacement bridge considering freeboard, or the amount of clearance of the bottom of the bridge over various water-surface elevations. Avila Associates found that the water surface elevation at the upstream face of the proposed bridge will be slightly decreased as compared to the water surface elevation at the upstream face of the current bridge, which is a result of the removal of the bridge piers. They found that the minimum “soffit” or bridge underside will be 10.3 ft. above mean sea level, which will provide approximately 1.5 ft. of freeboard over the 50-year water surface elevation and 1.2 ft. of freeboard over the 100-year water surface elevation relative to expected sea level rise. These findings exceed the Caltrans Highway Design Manual criteria. Although the project has been designed to ensure structural and geologic stability to the extent feasible for the expected life of the project, the Commission finds that here remains an inherent risk to development along the shoreline and that the project is located in an area of the Coastal Zone that has been identified as subject to potential hazards from flooding, tidal action, high surf conditions, storm surge, and seismicity. The Coastal Act recognizes that certain types of development, such as the proposed project, may involve some risk. As such, the Commission finds that due to the inevitable possibility of storm waves, surges, erosion, seismicity, and flooding, the applicant should assume these risks as a condition of approval. Therefore, Special Condition Nine (9) requires the applicant to waive any claim of liability against the Commission for damage to life or property that may occur as a result of the permitted development. For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that, as conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. E. WATER QUALITY Coastal Act section 30230, as incorporated in the County’s LCP, states:

Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy


31

populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

Section 30231 of the Coastal Act, as incorporated in the County’s LCP, states that:

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, minimizing alteration of natural streams.

Coastal Act Section 30230 requires that marine resources be maintained and enhanced and that uses of the marine environment be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Further, Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters be maintained. Erosion adjacent to surface waters can result in increased sedimentation, thereby reducing the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters. Sedimentation directly affects wetland ecology be increasing water turbidity. Turbidity reduces the penetration of sunlight needed by aquatic vegetation, which translates to negative effects on plant establishment and overall productivity, which in turn impacts aquatic species that depend on such vegetation for food and cover. In addition, aquatic animals are affected by turbidity in the following ways: reduced visibility for visual predators such as birds and mammals; and inhibited feeding effectiveness for benthic filter feeding organisms. The Goleta Slough channel impacted by this project is located in Santa Barbara County and drains approximately 11.5 square miles of the Santa Ynez Mountains, which ultimately terminates at the ocean. As described above, the existing Goleta Beach County Park Bridge is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new bridge 60 feet upstream. Removal of the existing bridge will eliminate 18 piers from within the open water portion of the slough channel as well as the bridge abutments that are currently within the slough banks. The subject project also includes implementation of a restoration plan of the project area, which includes a two acre parcel just north of the bridge. The Goleta Slough channel could be adversely impacted as a result of the implementation of project activities by unintentional introduction of sediment, debris, or chemicals with hazardous properties. The applicant proposes to use Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to support areas with a risk of soil erosion and to protect waterways from accidental discharge/sedimentation into the slough. Additionally, to further minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic resources resulting from runoff during construction, Special Condition Six (6) outlines construction-related requirements to provide for the safe storage of construction materials. As provided under Special Condition Six (6), it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that no construction materials, debris or other waste is placed or stored where it could be introduced to


32

coastal waters. Special Condition Six (6) also requires that all construction debris, sediment, or trash shall be properly contained and removed from construction areas on a regular basis and that construction equipment shall not be cleaned on the beach or in the beach parking lots. Further, stockpiling of excavated material and demolition and construction debris at the project site could result in transport of sediments into adjacent waterways. Thus, in order to reduce the potential for sedimentation, Special Condition Eleven (10) requires the applicant to provide evidence to the Executive Director of the location of the disposal site for all excess excavated material and debris. Should the disposal site be located in the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit shall be required. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30230 and 30231. F. PUBLIC ACCESS Coastal Act Section 30210, as incorporated in the County’s LCP, states:

In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

Coastal Act Section 30211, as incorporated in the County’s LCP, states:

Development shall not interfere with the public’s right to access to the sea where acquired through use or legislature authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Sections 30210 and 30211 of the Coastal Act mandate that maximum public access and recreational opportunities be provided and that development not interfere with the public’s right to access the coast. The proposed project involves the replacement of the existing, structurally deficient Goleta Beach County Bridge over Goleta Slough. The project site is located in an area adjacent to the Goleta Beach County Park, which is heavily used by the public and includes sidewalks and a Class I bicycle/pedestrian pathway (beachway) on the south side of the bridge, along the slough. Furthermore, Sandspit Road and the Goleta Beach County Park Bridge provide the only vehicular accessway to Goleta Beach County Park. The bridge replacement would result in improved public access including the replacement of two three foot wide sidewalks with one five-foot wide sidewalk as well as a new 12 ft. wide segregated Class 1 bicycle lane. The new bridge is not expanding capacity; however, the design improvements create non-motorized public access improvements, benefits by making it easier and safer for the


33

public to reach the Goleta Beach Park via means other than driving over the Goleta Beach County Park Bridge. The new bridge will be built on a new alignment upstream from the existing bridge. The County analyzed alternatives to the proposed project including reconstruction of the new bridge in the same footprint as the existing bridge; however, this alternative was determined to be infeasible because it would have significantly increased the length of time for bridge reconstruction to occur resulting in prolonged and greater adverse impacts to sensitive habitat areas. Moreover, given the deteriorated condition of the existing bridge and other public safety concerns during construction, County staff determined that it would be infeasible to maintain one open traffic lane while the other portion of the bridge was replaced. Thus, this option would have likely required complete closure of the bridge for extended periods of time and necessitated closure of the Goleta Beach County Park resulting in significant adverse impacts to public access and recreation. As proposed, the reconstruction of the bridge will not significantly interfere with the continued operation of the beach park and vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the park will be maintained at all times during project operations. Although the project will result in long-term public access and recreational improvements and will not interfere with accessing the park, there will be some unavoidable temporary impacts resulting from construction/demolition staging activities. Throughout project implementation, the construction staging area would occupy approximately 40 parking spaces, equating to 18% of the available parking supply. Based on parking surveys conducted in 2012, parking occupancy averaged 69% of the available space. Thus, the temporary use of these parking spaces for construction staging would result in relatively minor short-term adverse impacts to public access and recreation, as the spaces to be used represent a small percentage of available parking capacity at the park and will likely occupy only excess capacity. However, in order to ensure the safety of recreational users of the project site and avoid any potential interruption to public access of the beach park occurs, the Commission requires the applicant to submit a public access plan, pursuant to Special Condition Five (5), to the Executive Director for review and approval. Special Condition Five (5) requires a description of the methods (including signs, fencing, posting or security guards, etc.) by which safe public access around the activity areas shall be maintained during all project operations. Where use of public parking spaces is unavoidable, the minimum number of public parking spaces that are occupied for the staging of equipment, machinery and employee parking shall be used. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent Coastal Act Sections 30210 and 30211. G. VISUAL RESOURCES Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states:

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed


34

to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

Coastal Act Section 30251 requires that visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected, landform alteration shall be minimized, and where feasible, degraded areas shall be enhanced and restored. The Goleta Bridge project site is located along the Goleta Beach County Park waterfront and is visible from the beach area and adjacent roadways. During construction, impacts to visual resources associated with construction work and equipment would occur; however, these impacts would be temporary in nature. The new bridge would be slightly longer and wider in size and constructed 60 feet upstream from the existing bridge. However, due to vertical restrictions of the site, the bridge profile will conform closely to the existing grades on both approaches. Based on this design, the replacement bridge will not result in any additional impacts to views to and along the coast (Exhibit 6). Furthermore, the proposed project would improve the appearance of the existing bridge by removing all of the piles in the open water portion of the slough channel, while reducing the overall number of piles. The replacement bridge also incorporates aesthetic design features as a part of Contact Sensitive Solutions, a Federal Highway Administration program that ensures transportation facilities fit within their proposed physical setting. The proposed project location is adjacent to the sandy beach and ocean and blue water views of the ocean are available across the entire site. In such a location, it is necessary to assess any potential visual impacts that may result from the completion of the proposed project. In this case, bluewater views of the ocean from Sandspit Road are available along the entire reach of the project site. In past permit actions, the Commission has required the use of visually permeable rails or barriers in road or bridge projects that are in visually sensitive locations, such as the project site. Moreover, the Commission has worked extensively with the California Department of Transportation (through the Bridge Rail Subcommittee) to develop railing designs that are visually compatible and allow for public views of scenic coastal areas, while ensuring public safety. In this case, the County has included a visually permeable bridge railing as part of the proposed project which has been designed consistent with railing designs developed by the Bridge Rail Subcommittee (Exhibit 10). Therefore, as proposed, the project has been designed to maintain blue water views across the site and avoid any new adverse impacts to public views of the ocean from the highway, and maintain and enhance scenic coastal views, as required by Section 30251. For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as proposed, is consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act.


35

H. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) The proposed project area lies within the County of Santa Barbara, but falls within the Commission’s area of retained permit jurisdiction as shown on the LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction map. The Commission has certified the Local Coastal Program for the County of Santa Barbara (Coastal Land Use Plan and Coastal Zoning Ordinance), which contains policies for regulating development and protection of coastal resources, including the protection of environmentally sensitive habitats, recreation and visitor serving facilities, coastal hazards, and public access. I. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 13096(a) of the Commission’s administrative regulations requires Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit application to be supported by a finding showing the application, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment. The County completed the Initial Study and certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 25, 2014 concluding that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment if not conditioned; but also concluding that there would not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures incorporated would successfully mitigate the potentially significant impacts. The Commission incorporates its findings on Coastal Act consistency at this point as if set forth in full. These findings address all potential significant adverse environmental effects of the project that as discussed in detail above, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act in addition to the Local Coastal Program for the County of Santa Barbara. Feasible mitigation measures which will minimize all adverse environmental effects have been required as special conditions. Special Conditions 1 through 11 are required to assure the project’s consistency with Section 13096 of the California Code of Regulations. As conditioned, there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available, beyond those required, which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned to mitigate the identified impacts, can be found to be consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA. Appendix A - Substantive File Documents Final Design Hydraulic Study, dated June 2, 2014, prepared by Avila and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Geotechincal Report Goleta Beach Park Bridge Over Goleta Slough, dated February 2015, Prepared by Fugro Consultants, Inc.; Natural Environment Study, dated March 2014, prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants; California Department of Transportation


36

Bridge Inspection Report; California Department of Transportation Bridge Inspection Report dated May 2008; Biological Opinion for the Goleta Bridge Beach Park Replacement Project, dated August 4, 2014, prepared by USFWS; Endangered Species Act Section7(a)(2) Concurrence Letter for the California Department of Transportation’s Bridge-Replacement Project at Goleta Beach Park, dated June 16, 2014, prepared by NOAA-NMFS; Jurisdictional Waters Assessment for the Replacement of Goleta Beach Park Bridge (51C-0158), Santa Barbara County, dated August 27, 2013, prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants.

Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map CDP 4-14-1796

Project Location

Exhibit 2 Parcel Map CDP 4-14-1796

APN 071-200-013

APN 071-200-017

SR 217

HWY 101

Project Site

Airport

UCSB

Exhibit 3 Aerial Photo CDP 4-14-1796

More Mesa

Exhibit 4 Project Area CDP 4-14-1796

Exhibit 5 Photo – Existing Bridge CDP 4-14-1796

Emergency Pile and I-Beam

Existing Bridge

Exhibit 6 Existing vs. Proposed CDP 4-14-1796

Proposed Bridge

Exhibit 7 De-watering plan CDP 4-14-1796

New Piles on Slough Bank

New South Bank Abutment

New North Bank Abutment

New Bridge

Bike and Pedestrian Way

Sandspit Rd.

Existing Piles to be Removed

South Bank Abutment to be Removed

North Bank Abutment to be Removed

New Culvert

De-watering Culverts

Old Bridge

Exhibit 8 De-watering plan CDP 4-14-1796

Temporary Water Diversion System

Existing Bridge to be Removed

Existing Piles to be Removed

Exhibit 9 Habitat Impacts CDP 4-14-1796

Exhibit 10 Pedestrian Railing CDP 4-14-1796

Exhibit 11 Existing Bridge- As Built CDP 4-14-1796

As Built Bridge Sandspit Road

Exhibit 12 Site Plan Proposed Bridge CDP 4-14-1796

Proposed Bridge

Sandspit Road

Bike Path

Old Bridge

Goleta Slough

Goleta Park

Exhibit 13 Grading Plan CDP 4-14-1796

Exhibit 14 Planting and Restoration Plan CDP 4-14-1796